|
| ▲ | hadlock 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Is it realistic to rewrite your AGENTS.md every six weeks? That's about how often Anthropic releases a new point release of Opus. |
| |
|
| ▲ | esikich 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I have had very little luck with agents.md. What has worked well for me is a ./docs folder. They seem to just create and update stuff on their own. |
| |
|
| ▲ | orlp 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| If you want this it's trivial to add an AGENTS.md that simply says "if you're Claude read CLAUDE.md, if you're Astra read ASTRA.md". A common entry point is good regardless. |
| |
| ▲ | jwolfe 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | This wastes both tokens and turns. But yes it's probably the best option we have today. | | |
| ▲ | pishpash 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It can try its own file and fall back to generic like here. What's wrong with that? | |
| ▲ | recursivegirth 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Wasting turns? That is silly, use a better harness. Also token usage can mitigated by incremental discovery instead of stuck 5k+ worth of tokens in the AGENT/Claude md file. | | |
| ▲ | jwolfe 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Every turn means more tokens in ways that are not obvious to most people and lead to tons of unnecessary cache reads. No harness can batch your agents.md read with the reads the contents of the file tell it to read. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | TomGarden 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| By this logic you'd probably be wise to tier your claude.md by model (sonnet/opus) as well as effort level too, considering the varying failure modes |
| |
| ▲ | swyx 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | except they have similar pretrain/rlhf data which is the thing u really want to tune for | | |
| ▲ | TomGarden 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | YMMV but for me even models in the same family fail in different ways, and every incremental update changes it | |
| ▲ | 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
|
| ▲ | willsmith72 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| depends what you're doing. if you've got a specialized agent deployed in prod, of course your evals and prompts will be targeted towards 1 specific version of a model. on the other hand if it's just a local coding/"use my computer" agent, i highly doubt the effort in maintaining different prompts is worth any gain in performance |
|
| ▲ | arcanemachiner 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| No thanks, I'm not tuning a bunch of files just for things to break when I switch models or a new one comes out. I'll just use my one-size-fits-all AGENTS.md file and tweak it when the one of the clankers screw up. I don't have time for such busywork. Actually, I will append extra rules to CLAUDE.md (which imports AGENTS.md) since there is a hook there, and Claude has its own foibles. So I'll backpedal a bit there. |
|
| ▲ | qlte 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It looks for Claude.md first so I don't understand what you think the problem is with the standard name as a fallback. |
|
| ▲ | atonse 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Yeah but are models good enough to review these files and say “i would work better if you worded it this way?” |
|
| ▲ | groby_b 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| That's of course rather nonsensical. In a "one LLM only" environment, your instructions are by default tuned for said LLM. In a multi-LLM environment, roughly nobody will keep separate sets of instructions for each. It's not a realistic take. On top of that: If your LLM is so bad at reading that it can't follow a set of instructions that wasn't specifically written just for that one single precious LLM, I sure wonder what that says about your employers repeated statements that ASI is definitely right around the corner. |